One of the most dubious things I've noticed last year was Tyrese and Jill Scott both scoring #1 albums yet there was no sign of them on Top 40 radio. Eventually, I came across this article which points that out and holds it in questionable regard:

http://watercoolerconvos....o-airplay/

However, that was not enough and venturing further, I came across this article which delves deeper into the situation:
http://www.vibe.com/2016/...sis-essay/

The subject of the second article is certainly nothing new but it nevertheless persists and is made even more confusing in today's society; most non-hip hop black artists get pigeonholed into the R&B category regardless of how their music sounds VS white artists who make the same music and get extensive coverage on Top 40 and urban radio.

Overall, what I don't get is how an album can go to #1 yet get no Top 40 play. Even if the music wasn't intended for pop radio, it makes no sense as it goes directly against the rules of what charts represent (though this is far from the first instance of such). If this were 40, 30, 20 or even 10 years ago, no way would a chart-topping album not have some presence on the Top 40. It's baffling and one has to ask "why?" Why is this happening?

Pretty messed up isn't it? I think it has to do with what the masses that run these radios and corporations were listening to 20 years ago and how it's skewed their value of music and what mass appeal is. The teen pop days of the late 90s is nothing like the days of 1982-1985

MotownSubdivision said:

Overall, what I don't get is how an album can go to #1 yet get no Top 40 play.

Probably because nowadays a record doesn't have to sell much to be #1. How long did those albums stay at the top? Maybe they debuted high and dropped off quickly like many albums today. Also the mainstream popular acts are likely the ones downloaded for free the most or people just watch their video on Youtube instead of buying the album. I don't think Jill Scott gets the views of a G-Eazy or Taylor Swift.

Real R&B was appropriated by musicians and performers from a number of genres....rap-hip-hop, pop, gospel......and after it was appropriated, then the luminaries who brought forth the richness of the music were phased out because those who created this problem knew that both the luminaries and the artists they were seeking to replace them with could not co-exist because they knew if the luminaries remained visible, then the sampling would have been called out years before it actually was

Sampling was already getting outta hand before the end of the 80s

R&B was turned upside down, where during the years of its fulfillment, it was the strongest most influential music there was, before it morphed into a category, then a demographic, then a derivative, than a subculture, before trying to survive by any means possible before eventually disappearing altogether, and that direct exploitation has ripped into and destroyed the very fabric of black oriented music and it's the most disappointing turn of events I've witnessed as a music fan

this was a systematic breakdown, none of this is a coincidence

I don't even listen to radio anymore if it's not relating to talk show format or sports........

[Edited 4/16/16 18:06pm]

MickyDolenz said:

Both topped the chart for a week apiece.

Looking at the chart itself, I can see your point though.
http://www.billboard.com/...lboard-200
There are only 8 instances of an album staying #1 for more than a week last year. Getting a #1 album isn't the reward it once was but even so, it doesn't make sense to have an assortment of artists top the chart only to not promote them on Top 40 radio; even if sales were slow the weeks Tyrese and Jill were on top, a #1 album is still a #1 album regardless.

With all who made the Billboard 200 last year, you'd think we'd have more variety on pop radio but clearly that isn't the case and it hasn't been for years.

As far as those who've had their music downloaded more and their videos watched, that should be a non-factor since the rule to count streams as sales wasn't implemented till the end of the year if not just after.
[Edited 4/16/16 18:15pm]

alphastreet said:

IDEK. The Backstreet Boys, NSYNC and Britney moved massive amounts of units but their demographics were narrow whereas the stars of the 80's were selling millions of records across a broad spectrum of people. While the teen pop sensation of the late 90's was deep, the blockbuster years of the 80's was deep and wide.

Don't know why they would prefer to cater to a slimmer demographic, especially one that doesn't spend money on albums as opposed to trying to appeal to as many as possible. Admittedly it does depend on the artist promoted and we have very few artists now who can attract everyone under the sun like the MJ's, the Prince's and Madonna's of the past.

Can't remember the last time I actually listend to the radio. I listen to Spotify, Pandora or my ipod, the radio's iind of a dinosaur now isnt it?

MotownSubdivision said:

Getting a #1 album isn't the reward it once was but even so, it doesn't make sense to have an assortment of artists top the chart only to not promote them on Top 40 radio; even if sales were slow the weeks Tyrese and Jill were on top, a #1 album is still a #1 album regardless. As far as those who've had their music downloaded more and their videos watched, that should be a non-factor since the rule to count streams as sales wasn't implemented till the end of the year if not just after.

I'm not talking about counting streams as sales. I mean that more people watch the popular acts instead of buying their albums, so this is why lesser known acts like Jill Scott & Tyrese can debut at #1. If this was the pre-internet days, it's unlikely either would have made the top 10 on the Hot 100, let alone # 1. It's like at a movie theater. There's the big Star Wars and superhero type movies and there's counterprogramming for an audience who isn't into that. Like faith based movies which are kinda popular now. Those movies are not as expensive to film so don't have to have huge audiences to make a profit. The faith based movies likely get a different audience than the mainstream blockbuster movies and have more limited appeal to people who aren't Christian. Some are popular enough to get high on the box office chart, but may not last as long near the top.

.

Even in the past there were albums in the Top 10 which got little if any Top 40 airplay, like heavy metal and prog rock groups like Iron Maiden and Rush. Pink Floyd had few hit singles, but had big selling albums. There was however AOR stations who would play these kinds of acts. But AOR was a separate format like R&B, country, and easy listening. Not Top 40.

MotownSubdivision said:

IDEK. The Backstreet Boys, NSYNC and Britney moved massive amounts of units but their demographics were narrow whereas the stars of the 80's were selling millions of records across a broad spectrum of people. While the teen pop sensation of the late 90's was deep, the blockbuster years of the 80's was deep and wide. Don't know why they would prefer to cater to a slimmer demographic, especially one that doesn't spend money on albums as opposed to trying to appeal to as many as possible. Admittedly it does depend on the artist promoted and we have very few artists now who can attract everyone under the sun like the MJ's, the Prince's and Madonna's of the past.

Home video games are the new album. That's what many kids get excited about and spend their money on today and they cost more than a CD. Video games do have the wide appeal that music generally doesn't have today. It's like TV shows today are not as big as the ones in the 3 network days. There was fewer choices, so of course more people watched them. There's more channels today on TV & cable to choose from and there's subscription radio so the audience have become fragmented. If someone likes goth or folk music, they can find a station that plays that. They don't have to listen to Top 40. I think the internet has hurt music in other ways than free downloading. Decades ago, people might not know anything about the average act on the radio. Who knew anything much about Styx, Kansas, Boston, or The Spinners? They were kinda anonymous even though popular. Some didn't even have their pictures on the album cover like Chicago. Less so in the current TMZ/Wendy Williams era. Social media and more channels means more places for gossip. Some acts use social media, so have direct access to fans and even "trolls". This results in less of the "us and them" of the older acts. In the past eras, at best fans mailed letters to fan clubs, in which the act might not even see the letters and had a staff to respond to them.

The most relevant line in both of those articles was from the first one:

On the surface, it’s easy enough to understand. Tyrese and Jill Scott don’t make “pop” music, so their tracks aren’t expected to get rotation on Top 40 radio. Except, Top 40 radio isn’t supposed to be defined by music genre. It is supposed to be defined by what is popular. It is supposed to be defined by demand. Top 40 is supposed to play the music that people want to hear.

But radio’s relationship with consumers has been perverted.

That is the truth of all of it, black or white, or otherwise. The radio would be very different if the top 40 was actually played.

[Edited 4/16/16 23:36pm]

MotownSubdivision said:

That's what I was getting at. That limited demographic of people had more money to spend on music than past generations and products. That cohort group is grown up and on the radio, not necessarily appreciative of what a broad spectrum is listening to or wants

TrivialPursuit said:

Exactly.

One of the articles stated that execs implied that the reason Tyrese and Jill managed to pull off getting #1 albums was due to a slow sales week. Isn't every week a slow sales week for albums these days? You could make that excuse for practically every #1 album now but the bottom line is that it's a #1 album and therefore should receive some degree of Top 40 treatment.

MickyDolenz making astute points as usual although I still don't really understand the logistics behind radio airplay outside of "if something is popular, it gets played".

alphastreet said:

That's depressingly interesting. You got any more details on this?

MotownSubdivision said:

I still don't really understand the logistics behind radio airplay outside of "if something is popular, it gets played".

Many of the acts which are now called classic rock were not that popular with Top 40 radio and people buying singles. Some didn't really focus on singles, but on selling albums. Rock groups made concept albums like Tommy by The Who, which the songs might not make as much sense as a stand alone single. Prog & metal songs sometimes had Dungeon & Dragons type lyrics which had less mainstream Top 40 appeal and the songs were 10-20 minutes long, too long for Top 40, but Freeform FM stations would play them and even entire albums. That's how the album became more important in rock than in other genres. I've always noticed that in most record stores, the rock section was always the biggest section. Some rock sold a lot, even with little radio airplay, like Black Sabbath and early Metallica. Today old rock acts are the ones who get the most money spent on remastered albums and extravagant box sets, when other genres like old R&B, the albums are out of print or only available as costly imports from some other country like Japan. Rock acts also sell the most merchandising like T-shirts. R&B/soul/funk generally did not sell that much in albums like the rock acts, and was more known for singles. This is why some tried to crossover because that is where the bigger sales were and so there was more media attention for them than the acts mainly popular to the R&B audience. More media attention helped sales. Before the mid-1970s the major labels didn't really have a R&B department and when it did happen, they didn't get the same attention and money as the rock acts. R&B was often on indie labels, who didn't have the money or power of the majors. Even Motown & Atlantic were independents that focused on R&B. Atlantic later did successfully branch out into rock and became a major when it joined Warner Brothers. Motown failed to do this with their Rare Earth label. Only the band Rare Earth band had any success.

MotownSubdivision said:

Not going to pretend I'm an insider if that's what you're asking

I was just talking about this same subject a few days ago with someone else. She said tom joyner was complaining about how pop radio does not play tyrese songs. I told her Tyrese's album was #1 Pop yet he received zero supp
ort on that radio format. I was also pointing out how Angie Stone debuted at #3 R&B with her last album with only 9000 copies sold. Back in my day, she wouldnt have even made the Top 40 with those kinds of numbers and Tyrese damn sure wouldnt have had a #1 Pop album in 1986 or even 1996 if his singles were not receiving airplay on those stations. Its crazy now how its decided whos scored what positions on which charts. Makes no sense to me.

MotownSubdivision said:

/ Because the whole system is rigged!!! Remember Bruno Mars saying he was told in the beginning that he had great songs but they needed to find some white artist to sign the songs. Mars does not even do traditional RnB but some music exec belived his face was too dark.

If Nick Jonas "singing R&B" on SNL this weekend was the intended result of ya'lls theory of making R&B white for white folks.... we're f'cked. My poor abused ears.

.

When will Bruno Mars release these great songs laurarichardson?

TrivialPursuit said:

--- That is exactly what the powers in charge don't want. Diversity!!! In the golden age of radio James Brown was played along side Rolling Stones.

MickyDolenz said:

MotownSubdivision said:

I still don't really understand the logistics behind radio airplay outside of "if something is popular, it gets played".

Many of the acts which are now called classic rock were not that popular with Top 40 radio and people buying singles. Some didn't really focus on singles, but on selling albums. Rock groups made concept albums like Tommy by The Who, which the songs might not make as much sense as a stand alone single. Prog & metal songs sometimes had Dungeon & Dragons type lyrics which had less mainstream Top 40 appeal and the songs were 10-20 minutes long, too long for Top 40, but Freeform FM stations would play them and even entire albums. That's how the album became more important in rock than in other genres. I've always noticed that in most record stores, the rock section was always the biggest section. Some rock sold a lot, even with little radio airplay, like Black Sabbath and early Metallica. Today old rock acts are the ones who get the most money spent on remastered albums and extravagant box sets, when other genres like old R&B, the albums are out of print or only available as costly imports from some other country like Japan. Rock acts also sell the most merchandising like T-shirts. R&B/soul/funk generally did not sell that much in albums like the rock acts, and was more known for singles. This is why some tried to crossover because that is where the bigger sales were and so there was more media attention for them than the acts mainly popular to the R&B audience. More media attention helped sales. Before the mid-1970s the major labels didn't really have a R&B department and when it did happen, they didn't get the same attention and money as the rock acts. R&B was often on indie labels, who didn't have the money or power of the majors. Even Motown & Atlantic were independents that focused on R&B. Atlantic later did successfully branch out into rock and became a major when it joined Warner Brothers. Motown failed to do this with their Rare Earth label. Only the band Rare Earth band had any success.

With the smaller selection of mainstream acts and a number of which who chart (and receive spins) smaller still, shouldn't playing those artists who do make it to the top balance out everything?

The industry is trying to show they are willing adapt but they still aren't willing to actually do it full-circle.

laurarichardson said:

MotownSubdivision said:

One of the most dubious things I've noticed last year was Tyrese and Jill Scott both scoring #1 albums yet there was no sign of them on Top 40 radio. Eventually, I came across this article which points that out and holds it in questionable regard: http://watercoolerconvos....o-airplay/ However, that was not enough and venturing further, I came across this article which delves deeper into the situation: http://www.vibe.com/2016/...sis-essay/ The subject of the second article is certainly nothing new but it nevertheless persists and is made even more confusing in today's society; most non-hip hop black artists get pigeonholed into the R&B category regardless of how their music sounds VS white artists who make the same music and get extensive coverage on Top 40 and urban radio. Overall, what I don't get is how an album can go to #1 yet get no Top 40 play. Even if the music wasn't intended for pop radio, it makes no sense as it goes directly against the rules of what charts represent (though this is far from the first instance of such). If this were 40, 30, 20 or even 10 years ago, no way would a chart-topping album not have some presence on the Top 40. It's baffling and one has to ask "why?" Why is this happening?

/ Because the whole system is rigged!!! Remember Bruno Mars saying he was told in the beginning that he had great songs but they needed to find some white artist to sign the songs. Mars does not even do traditional RnB but some music exec belived his face was too dark.

I never heard about that until you mentioned it. SMH.

laurarichardson said:

TrivialPursuit said:

The most relevant line in both of those articles was from the first one:

On the surface, it’s easy enough to understand. Tyrese and Jill Scott don’t make “pop” music, so their tracks aren’t expected to get rotation on Top 40 radio. Except, Top 40 radio isn’t supposed to be defined by music genre. It is supposed to be defined by what is popular. It is supposed to be defined by demand. Top 40 is supposed to play the music that people want to hear.

But radio’s relationship with consumers has been perverted.

That is the truth of all of it, black or white, or otherwise. The radio would be very different if the top 40 was actually played.

[Edited 4/16/16 23:36pm]

--- That is exactly what the powers in charge don't want. Diversity!!! In the golden age of radio James Brown was played along side Rolling Stones.

Just compare the Hot 100 of 1985:

https://en.wikipedia.org/...es_of_1985

...to the Hot 100 of 2015:

https://en.wikipedia.org/...es_of_2015

The 2015 chart has a mix but not like the much more distinguished variety of its 30 year old predecessor. Most of 2015's chart I haven't even heard on the radio and this is before the RIAA started counting streams.

EDIT: I would have posted the actual images but I don't know how to do that so here ya go...

[Edited 4/19/16 5:33am]

MotownSubdivision said:

With the smaller selection of mainstream acts and a number of which who chart (and receive spins) smaller still, shouldn't playing those artists who do make it to the top balance out everything?

I'm not sure it works like that. How many of the people who buy Jill Scott & Tyrese CDs listen to Top 40 and vice versa? Most likely they're primarily selling to people who listen to the adult R&B (formally called urban contemporary) stations, not Top 40 or the main R&B/hip hop stations. The adult R&B format plays stuff like Jill Scott, Charlie Wilson, Adele, Jaheim, Lalah Hathaway, Maxwell, Robin Thicke, etc. plus oldies like Maze, EWF, Michael Jackson, Anita Baker, Johnnie Taylor, and Luther Vandross who don't get played on the regular R&B stations which play rap and singers such as Bryson Tiller, Chris Brown, Rihanna, & Beyoncé . There isn't a lot of overlap in the playists of the main hip hop/R&B and adult R&B formats. Some Beyoncé songs like Love On Top get airplay on the adult R&B stations and so did Happy and Uptown Funk. The acts on the hip hop/R&B format are the ones who usually get played on Top 40 pop stations, not the ones on the adult R&B format whose audience tends to be older than listeners of the hip hop/R&B stations.